9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Income-tax Officer, Collector of Nilgiris, and Tahsildar of Coonoor can proceed to attach and sell properties for the realization of alleged income-tax arrears of the petitioner's husband. 2. Whether the property purchased in the name of the petitioner can be attached as the property of her husband under the benami transaction. 3. Interpretation of Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the powers conferred on the Collector for recovery of arrears. 4. Whether the Madras Revenue Recovery Act allows the Collector to attach and sell land not registered in the defaulter's name. 5. Legal remedies available to the petitioner against the attachment and sale proceedings, including the right to prefer a claim and file a suit. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the authorities from attaching and selling her properties for the income-tax arrears of her husband. The Collector had proceeded to attach the Benhutty Estate, purchased in the petitioner's name, treating it as benami for her husband. The respondents argued that the authorities had the right to treat the petitioner as a benamidar, and she could seek remedy through a civil suit. 2. The petitioner contended that the estate was purchased with her own funds, registered in her name, and she had paid taxes on the income. The Collector asserted that the property belonged to the husband, justifying the attachment. The dispute centered on whether the property could be attached as belonging to the husband despite being in the petitioner's name. 3. Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act empowered the Collector to recover arrears as land revenue. The proviso granted additional powers akin to a civil court for recovery. The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso did not provide an alternative mode but enhanced the Collector's powers for effective recovery. 4. The Madras Revenue Recovery Act outlined procedures for revenue arrears recovery, including attachment and sale of property. The petitioner argued that only the defaulter's land could be attached. Past judgments highlighted that the defaulter referred to the registered proprietor, not necessarily the real owner. 5. The petitioner had the right to prefer a claim under civil procedure rules, and the Collector was obligated to inquire into such claims. Legal precedents indicated that a suit for declaration against the attachment was maintainable. While the petitioner could file a suit, the court could also entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent the attachment. The court dismissed the petition but clarified the petitioner's rights to challenge the attachment and the subsequent procedures available. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex interplay between income-tax recovery, benami transactions, and revenue arrears recovery procedures, providing insights into legal remedies available to parties in such disputes.
|
